« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »

December 27, 2005

Kurzweil's Singular Sensation

Last night C-Span 2 showed a talk by Ray Kurzweil, speaking recently at the Council on Foreign Relations. The subject was his new book, The Singularity is Near. Regular readers will recall my column on the subject from last year.

I haven't read the book and probably won't get around to it -- but I must say, Kurzweil makes a pretty good case for the logarithmic advance of technology, which, it would seem, must necessarily lead to the Singularity at some point, exactly when depending on where we are on the curve. He mentioned advances in medicine, energy research, telecommunications, and numerous other fields, showing graphs that illustrated everything on logarithmic scales. He didn't talk much about the possible implications in terms of immortality, although he touched briefly on the subject of replacing the brain with a chip -- I think he estimated that computers will have superhuman intelligence by about 2030, and we'll have the ability to do a brain scan and replace a human brain with a chip by 2045 (at which time I'll be 82, if I'm still around). "Keep yourself alive the old-fashioned way for awhile longer," he says, and immortality will be possible. He argues that the brain is really not as complex as implied by the raw number of nerve cells -- the data required to describe it could be stored on one CD. In terms of mapping the brain, he points to the logarithmic progress that happened with the human genome mapping project as an example -- nothing seemed to be happening for several years, then all of a sudden, they got the whole genome sequenced in seemingly no time.

I'm not sure what to make of it all. The part that's interesting -- not just about the Singularity, but about technological progress as a whole -- is that no one individual, company, government, etc. is running the thing, and individual projects that flop have no effect on the overall trend.

If you're interested, here's a transcript of Kurzweil's talk at the Council on Foreign Relations.

My take on it is that there's no sense worrying, because (a) there's nothing that can -- or, maybe, should -- be done to stop it, and (b) a lot of the miraculous improvements in technology we've seen have been great to use but have not fundamentally changed human nature. I guess the proof of the pudding will be when (if) it does become possible to replace the brain with a chip -- will human nature be fundamentally changed at that point?

Just to follow up on a point I discussed in last year's column about the Singularity, it might be interesting to see what happens in the area of chessplaying software -- an area in which we have already achieved "superintelligence" of a sort, in the sense that even the strongest human chess players can no longer beat the strongest programs. Will developers "hit the wall" and fail to achieve further advances, now that their programs are smarter than they are? Or will we eventually -- and most likely sooner rather than later -- find that computers have solved the ultimate question posed by chess: Can white force a win, or can black force a draw? Look ahead, say, five years, and will chess cease to be a fascinating game, since computers will have it all figured out? Or will software have gone as far as it can go, once humans can no longer understand what the software is doing (and hence not be able to develop it any further)?

In any case, I maintain a healthy skepticism about the Singularity. I'll believe it when I see it. Still, Kurzweil does make a compelling argument; one that's hard to dismiss.

Posted by Urbie at 07:20 AM | Comments (0)

December 21, 2005

Economics: the freaky science?

Much has been written about the bestselling book, Freakonomics, by economist Steven Levitt and his journalist sidekick, Stephen Dubner, but having been up to my ears in business school lately, I only got around to reading it this week. The New York Times says Freakonomics is the most blogged-about book of 2005, so I guess I'm a little late to the party. Another blog entry about Freakonomics is like another song about Paris -- as Dave Frishberg would say, like another cup of water in the sea.

Nonetheless, the book is a fascinating examination of some of the unexpected ways people behave. I guess the first insight that caught my interest was the authors' observation that "Morality ... represents the way that people would like the world to work -- whereas economics represents how it actually does work."

And this book is all about the way the world actually works. There's been a lot of hullaballoo about one of the book's main investigations: the relationship between legalized abortion since Roe v. Wade and a decline in crime rates since then. The authors make a pretty good case for what should be obvious: give society a way to avoid bringing unwanted children into the world, and a lot of the ill effects wrought by those unwanted children won't happen.

But there are a lot of other interesting aspects of society discussed in the book as well. Which brings me to my only complaint about Freakonomics: it's too short! A mere 207 pages is nowhere near enough space to discuss abortion, a Chicago crack-selling gang (a fascinating segment featuring inside information rarely available to the general public), cheating patterns in sumo wrestling, the migration of baby names from upscale to downscale kids, and one of the book's most startling revelations -- that money does not actually buy elections. I'd like to see a separate book on each of these topics; this is unlikely, but rumor has it that the authors are working on a second book, tentatively entitled, Superfreakonomics.

But another important aspect the book discusses -- and one that hasn't been sufficiently played up, in the reviews I've read and seen -- is that in case after case, "conventional wisdom" is wrong.

I've often pondered the question of how many of our assumptions -- the ones on which personal and societal behaviors, and public policies, are based -- are just plain wrong. Awhile back, I discussed how this inherent bias in favor of "conventional wisdom" tends to distort news coverage. Editors think they already know the story before they've sent a reporter out to investigate it, so they assume their conclusion and insist that the reporter write an article in support of it -- instead of in support of whatever truth he might actually find out there.

This is one of the main reasons I've become so disenchanted with American politics -- both parties are hidebound by their own conventional wisdom, and few politicians are willing to be politically incorrect and develop policies based on how the world really works, instead of how they'd like it to work.

Freakonomics is unlikely to change much of that, but the authors certainly aren't afraid to be politically incorrect, in any number of ways; they just go out, do research, and call 'em like they see 'em.

Posted by Urbie at 06:26 PM | Comments (0)

December 18, 2005

A series of successive approximations

That's what life is -- or at least that's what I keep telling myself. You take aim, fire, miss the target, figure out which way you missed, adjust, and squeeze off another round.

The fall semester has, mercifully, come to a conclusion. I limped to the finish line in Accounting 456 (government/nonprofit) and did slightly better in 375 (tax), while opting to take a mulligan in 455 (Financial Reporting III).

To improve my chances of success in the spring, I decided to take a few steps to lighten my course/work load: I substituted BA 305 (Business Law II) for the more difficult ACC 490 (Case Studies in Financial Reporting). I decided to pursue a 135-hour internship for three credit hours, either next summer or later in the year, to allow me to take one less class this semester. And I'm going to relinquish my post in ITS, effective roughly at the start of the spring semester. I'm also auditing ACC 475 (advanced tax). I want to get some exposure to that material, but upon looking over the lecture notes, decided I didn't want any part of having to pass exams in that class! But auditing, I can just show up, take notes, and not worry about getting every last detail nailed down.

Because I am going to have to get every last detail -- or at least a lot of details -- down in ACC 455. As I discovered this semester, there's a lot of material in 455 that you can't figure out on the fly -- you just have to remember how to do it, and that's that. Hence the need to free up extra time. The plan is, if I have to spend 40 hours a week on that course, that's what I'll do.

With any luck, this approximation will be closer than the last one, and I'll have better results.

Posted by Urbie at 01:21 PM | Comments (0)

December 10, 2005

Terry Shannon, friend and colleague

Yesterday, Meg got a package in the mail, containing a Computerworld "Shark Tank" t-shirt. "Shark Tank" is a column that pokes fun at some of the absurdities that occur in the IT world. Meg had sent in a couple of items from her experience in tech support at a small ISP -- and, since they got published, she received a t-shirt, the standard reward for providing material for the column.

A few weeks ago, when her item was published, I thought of Terry Shannon, an old friend whom I'd worked with on my first job out of college, at Digital Review, a Ziff-Davis computer magazine. Terry used to write a column under the pseudonym "Charlie Matco," which highlighted rumors, generally pertaining to unannounced products from DEC or other technology companies. Terry's column was a little like "Shark Tank," in its clever writing style -- and the fact that he offered rewards (in his case, coffee mugs) to anyone providing information he used in the column.

In more recent years, Terry published a newsletter covering HP-Compaq (the company that had acquired DEC several years ago).

I surfed over to Terry's Web site, hoping to drop him a line to tell him about the "Shark Tank" thing. To my sadness, the home page contained the news that Terry died a few months ago.

Terry was a funny guy -- he had a prodigious vocabulary and a tendency to push deadlines to the limit; the latter habit led to a lot of late nights at the office, getting columns written. "Good morning," I'd say on my way in. "And what a delightful morning it is!," he'd reply, when he'd been there all night.

I hadn't seen Terry since I left DR in 1987 but had stayed in touch with the occasional e-mail. The last time I heard from him, which I think was about a year ago, he mentioned that he had been suffering from clinical depression, which was not entirely under control despite some medication he was taking.

Terry had a lot of stories from his experiences in the Vietnam war and, more recently, the computer industry wars that characterize the boom-bust cycles many of us in the technology industry have grown weary of. Terry seemed to have done well in fashioning a career as an industry journalist/pundit, and I'm sure having been through a real war gave him some perspective on what's important and what isn't.

Even though I hadn't seen Terry in a long time, I still thought of him as one of the more interesting people I've worked with. We had more than a few laughs around the office, and his vocabulary and recall of literary references (he was extremely well-read) put me to shame, despite my having spent a career putting words together. I'll miss him!

Posted by Urbie at 03:25 PM | Comments (0)

December 09, 2005

Tax cuts for "the rich?" No -- they're for you and me

The House of Representatives has just voted to extend, for two years, a reduced tax rate on capital gains and corporate dividends. If the bill is adopted by the Senate, the long-term capital gains rate of 15% and the tax rate on qualifying dividends, also 15%, will apply through 2010, instead of 2008, when they are currently due to expire.

These tax breaks are invariably derided by liberals as "tax cuts for the rich." But they are nothing of the sort. That's because a lot of lower- and middle-class people also benefit from both of these tax breaks.

(Disclosure statement: I'm talking partly out of self-interest here, because Kafalas.com Acres, currently on the market, stands to net us a hefty capital gain, if we can sell it. But hey, we live in a rented house -- so we're hardly "the super-rich," as one Democratic Congressman tried to describe the people who benefit from the reduced tax rate.)

With millions of blue-collar and middle-class Americans investing in mutual funds these days, those people are subject to dividend and capital-gains taxes. We're not just talking about fat cats here. So when you hear someone like House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi say that the tax cuts are "increasing the deficit by $20 billion in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy," don't believe her. These tax cuts aren't just for the wealthy -- they're for anyone who puts money away for retirement.

Posted by Urbie at 08:35 AM | Comments (0)

December 03, 2005

Who needs winter?

If Kafalas.com and its associated personnel eventually succeed in pulling up stakes and moving back east, one thing I'll miss is winter golf in the Verde Valley. I headed down to Beaver Creek this morning for a round in the glorious 65-degree, 360-degree-sunshine conditions.

The more golf I play, though, the less I understand how the things that happen, happen. Today's round of 93 (a mediocre score, but given my lack of play this semester, not bad) featured close encounters with eagle on no fewer than three par-5s (hit the flagstick from 125 yards on #1, stuck one that rolled right by the hole on #12, and hit a pitch-and-run from 40 yards on #15 that almost went in -- I converted for birdies on #12 and #15). But the day's adventures also included a sextuple-bogey 10 on #10 and a 4-putt on #18. Overall, my stats for the day weren't bad -- four greens hit, 31 putts, five up-and-downs, and total length of putts made of 63 feet. But what a schizophrenic round!

One thing that helped was a putting technique I've used a lot in recent months, to stay steady on short putts: after stroking the putt, keep your gaze fixed on the spot where the ball was -- and don't look up until you hear the ball drop into the cup. Don't give in to the temptation to watch it roll; just listen -- hard -- and don't look up until you hear it drop! (Well, or until enough time has gone by that you know it's not going in, obviously -- otherwise you'd be standing there all day, looking like an idiot.) It's the best way I've ever found to stay steady and make a good stroke.

Posted by Urbie at 03:45 PM | Comments (1)

December 02, 2005

Immigration -- is it a problem?

These days, illegal immigration, mostly across the Mexican border, has become the bandwagon issue of the year -- every politician, from both parties, seems to agree that Washington needs to "do something" to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country.

Certainly, it's not good to have untold numbers of undocumented people (who you can't identify or keep track of) streaming across the border.

But I'm coming around to the idea that what we should be doing is just allow the free market to decide where people want to live and work. Let's face it -- no one is hiring Mexicans to do white-collar professional work; they're hiring them to pick vegetables, clean house, do landscaping, pound nails, and that sort of thing. That's work that needs to be done -- and if it can be done cheaper and better by immigrants, maybe it's time to let them come in legally and do it, rather than try to keep them out (which won't work anyway).

These people are not crossing the border to go on welfare -- not in any numbers, certainly. I'm sure there are a few that do, but there are lazy Americans, too -- almost everyone I've known who was on SSI disability, for example.

My grandparents came over from Greece because they could get jobs making shoes, selling vegetables, and so on (my grandfather had a horse-drawn wagon from which he sold strawberries, tomatoes, cauliflower, and stuff). The country needed labor, and they came over and provided it. Maybe the market is telling us that it needs more low-end labor. (Forget "maybe" -- the market is telling us that. Companies are offering jobs, and people are crossing the border to take them.) NAFTA was supposed to fix that, by moving jobs to Mexico, but that obviously hasn't worked very well -- a lot of employers want to stay here, but still want cheap labor from hard-working immigrants. Maybe it's time to recognize the economics of the situation and stop fighting it.

Posted by Urbie at 12:05 PM | Comments (0)

December 01, 2005

Getting the patient stabilized

If you've been following along at home, you may have wondered why I've been downplaying the business-school news lately. Well, let's just say that this semester has not been one for the highlight film. With Accounting 375, 455, and 456 on the menu, plus my part-time job, I had a pretty good idea it was going to be tough, but I wasn't expecting quite as much trouble as I've had.

Given the pummeling I took on the first two exams in Accounting 455 (Financial Reporting III), surviving the semester in that class was going to be an uphill battle under any circumstances. But as I started spending more and more time on it, I started to hit some turbulence in my other classes, especially 456. Something had to give.

So I've had to jettison 455 for this semester. Having suffered a broken nose and multiple contusions (painful but not mortal injuries, most likely) in a 456 exam yesterday, there's no way to take care of business in both courses, plus 375 (tax class, which has been the one bright spot this fall. Maybe I've got a future in the tax business; not the worst thing that could happen -- those guys make good money).

So I'm in for another go-round with 455 next spring. Not the plan I had in mind, but it'll work, and I should still be able to get my degree sometime next summer. My transcript may not come out looking as pretty as I'd hoped -- but in 20 years, no private-sector employer has asked to see my first college transcript, and I can't imagine things being all that different with this one.

Posted by Urbie at 07:01 AM | Comments (1)